News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Microservices Circuit-Breaker Pattern Implementation: Istio vs. Hystrix. Parent comment

Re:Microservices Circuit-Breaker Pattern Implementation: Ist... by discreteevent on Thursday December 13, 2018 @05:40PM (#18676804)
I'm not joking. Just to be clear, I'm taking asynchronous to mean a call that is not transactional. Where you are ok with eventual consistency. If something is transactional then keep it in one service. Make it an action not a transaction and save yourself a lot of grief.

So if something is asynchronous then why not back it up with a message broker and get the properties I listed (in earnest).

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Microservices Circuit-Breaker Pattern Implementation: Ist... by SuddsMcDuff on Saturday December 15, 2018 @11:35PM (#18691751)
I'd be interested to know if anyone's had success with distributed transactions in a microservice architecture. I've gotten into a world of pain every time I've tried.

We did have some success at one of my previous companies (wiggle.co.uk), but that was mainly due to pretty tight integration between MSMQ, MSDTC and MS Sql Server. Even then, we tried to avoid distributed transactions as much as possible.

[ Parent | on HN ]